User talk:Avraham/Archive 40

< Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  25 -  26 -  27 -  28 -  29 -  30 -  31 -  32 -  33 -  34 -  35 -  36 -  37 -  38 -  39 -  40 -  41 -  42 -  43 -  44 -  45 -  46 -  47 -  48 -  49 -  50 -  51 -  52 -  53 -  54 -  55 -  56 -  57 -  58 -  59 -  60 -  ... (up to 100)

Best wishes!

I'm glad to see your RfB. I have registered my support and wish you the best of luck! Majoreditor (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll add good wishes, as well. You might also want to know that, as you're using the word in your nom, you want "community's", not "communities." I'd change it myself, but some people might take it the wrong way or have a problem with that. IronDuke 13:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice touch

I needed that. Thanks mate, best as always Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you think I should create a separate case for the first account created in the third set of confirmed socks on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James Tucton, or are they from one of the above sets (James Tucton or 767-249ER)? Your statement appears it could be either. Synergy 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re to e-mail

Hi Avi, pleased to meet you.

I viewed the answer to Q12 as tl;dr at first, but after you asked me, I read it over and moved to support. Best of luck on the remainder of your RfB, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!!

Congratulations!!!!☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nicely done, Avraham. Congrats! :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats, and thanks for volunteering to do more work. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Avi, I didn't mean to close your RFB early, I saw the pink background on your RFB at WT:RFA and it said "Expired", so I flipped the crat switch, then I saw the ending time was a few hours away yet. Why there was this discrepancy, I don't know, but I decided to go ahead and finish the job of closing it rather than leave it half done. It's a clear promote at 96% anyway, Congrats! — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Ditto. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, you earned it. -- Mentifisto 20:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now add yourself to WP:CRAT — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You very much deserve the strong support you got. Good luck with the new duties, and thanks for volunteering to take them on! John Carter (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. I wanted to close it so bad...but Rlevse beat me to the punch. I told you third time's the charm on my RFB, and it looks like I was right. bibliomaniac15 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done, use your new tools well! Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dammit!! I always miss these things, am as slow as a wet week on the wiki uptake and my recent bad temper's no excuse either. Whatever it was you got nominated for, you fully deserve it. Full steam ahead, Avi, and best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw Rlevse's log entry promoting you on my watchlist and figured if I was really fast I could get my congratulations in ahead of everyone else. (Rlevse, what I do is open several browser windows so I can promote the person and post a talk page message at almost exactly the same time, so that other people can't get in ahead of me like that. :-) That was great, Avi, getting people to switch to support with your Q12. Are you still able to edit abuse filters? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(Although, come to think of it, maybe that technique isn't all that much use on projects with more than one bureaucrat.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I have no doubt you will wear the bureaucratic mantle well. Risker (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to extend my congratulations too, Avi. Welcome to the team. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Congratulations :-) --Mardetanha ^talk 23:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!! America69 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You were on RFB? Woah. I should've supported you; if I knew, I would've! :) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Snow congrats I'm glad that you're a 'crat now. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Well done; use your new tools carefully. Best, AGK 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Vive la bureaucratie! Félicitations, mon ami! -- Y not? 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

watchlist question

Hi Avraham,
First, congratulations and welcome back, hope you had an enjoyable holiday. I have a question that I hope you can answer; is there any way to have in the en.wiki watchlist pages from commons? It is a bit of an annoyance going back and forth just to check on things. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it does indeed look promising (but soooo slow). Enjoy your time away, Nableezy (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for update

My various attempts at resolving the issue we previously discussed keep bouncing me back to you, so I figured I'd inquire as to how things were progressing. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

/SUL

Sorry about this. I was trying to move it as well, but did the rename first. Apologies for cutting you off. Either way, I'm off now, so they're all yours. ;-) Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

user name change

I want find out if I can return to my former user name, or if it will be necessary to create a new user name. It is not clear to me of this is possible to return to the old one; and if it is possible, if that can be done on WP:Changing username. Your advice will be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. The old name has retired on it, and I assume that no one else could have taken it, although I have been known -- on occasion -- to make wrong assumptions. I will go ahead and make the request. Thanks again. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep

Some edits just scream "revert me now". I never knew I could be bored after two sentences. Seriously, I hesitate when messing with others' talk pages. I didn't think you'd want that displayed, though. See ya 'round. Tiderolls 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Hi, Avi! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

SUL

Hi, I am AUM from cz.wiki. I would like to make unified account as AUM, but I have found this: http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=AUM. Is it possible to get (usurp) these apparently inactive accounts? What do you think about getting aum accounts too to avoid possible confusion? I have an account aum-en here on en.wiki as you can see. Can it be connected to AUM somehow? Thanks. AUM / --Aum.en (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rishonim/Acharonim

Just to reply here, which is more appropriate. I've never thought of articles on Judaism as part of the I/P area, so my suggestion wouldn't affect them. It is true that we have huge academic sources for the I/P area, whereas, if one compares secondary academic sources on Judaism to the sheer quantity of primary sources, commentaries on the Talmud, the specialist secondary literature might not often cope adequately with the niceties and complexities of Judaic tradition. As a general rule, in the latter, however, I still think the articles on Judaism poorly done by.

• (a) many of them are stubs begging for elaboration. Compared to the intensity of focus shown on political articles by Israeli and Jewish editors (and of course their 'pro-Palestinian colleagues, but they often know little of Judaism), they evoke little passionate enquiry or dedicated editing. I think this unfortunate.
• (b) too many violate WP:OR or WP:SYNTH(though you will never find me raising that issue, and you can be assured I would revert or challenge any editor who tried to challenge these sketches on those grounds. As I often say, I don't think the rules are there for anything other than to assist those who don't know what is required to draft, collegially, encyclopedic articles.)
• (c)They are too inflected with a unifying, corporative drift, and systematically underplay, when they do not indeed elide, the rich diversity of opinion within rabbinical commentary. This is one of the unfortunate reflexes of the strong drive to make Israel into a uniform, homogeneous state: since Judaism is a feature of that state, its interpretation has tended to accentuate what unites, rather than record the variety of distinct and often conflicting traditions in the communities of historic Judaism.
• (c.1) The rifts between Ashkenazi and Sephardic cultures, even in things like halakhic rulings (which reflects indeed the ancient differences going back to Ezra, and to the later rifts between Eretz Israel and Geonim authorities, the Geonim and Ashkenazi schools), is substantially ignored. There were substantial differences between the two on issues like monogamy/polygamy, but if you read the latter wiki article, you would never believe it.
• (c.2) There is a visible bias in those articles on the law, at least to a raw but fascinated outsider like me, towards orthodox, as the central doctrinal body, and other schools, like Reform Judaism.

The two examples you provided of Rishonim and Acharonim underline the point I wished to make. In the Acharonim article you direct me to, we read:-

'According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, scholars in one era within the history of halachic development do not challenge the rulings of previous-era scholars, and hence Acharonim cannot dispute the rulings of rabbis of previous eras unless they find support from other rabbis of previous eras.'

Yes but 'Orthodox' here only begs the question, as does the citation of Menachem Elon on one aspect of the issue.

The academic literature, to give only a very small sampling, would supply things like the following:

'Acharonim don’t contradict rishonim.' Danon Danin,Shaʻare emunah, tr. Ravi Shachar, Feldheim Publishers, 2002 p.352

That is very Orthodox, conservative and peremptory, but

‘the Halakhah has always been inhibited by its interpreters’ veneration for their predecessors. The Amoraim deferred to the Tannaim, the Geonim (heads of the Babylonian academies= to the Amoraim, the Rishonim (earlier authorities) to the Geonim, and the Acharonim (later authorities) to the Rishonim. And the Acharonim of recent times have been the most timid of all . .In particular, they have been inclined to invoke theMishnaic principles . . .that one court may not rescind the decision of another unless it is superior in wisdom and number (Eduyot 1:4). As Solomon Freehof has pointed out, that rule was intended to apply to contemporary courts, but ‘Orthodoxy in recent centuries preferred, in its nervousness, to take the dictum to mean something that it was never intended to mean, namely, that no court of any generation can ever change the opinion of any other court, in whatever generation it lived, unless this modern court that wants to change the law can claim to be greater in number and wisdom than the predecessor’.’ John D.Tayner, Jewish Religious Law: a progressive perspective, Berghahn Books, 1998 p.38

This secondary academic source sounds to my unwashed ears like a Reform reading.

‘The opinions of the Rishonim gained almost universal acceptance through the Shulkhan Aruch, and therefore, later authorities could not counter them. While the Acharonim may decide between the opinions found among the Rishonim, they do not dispute them without overwhelming proof.' Aryeh Kaplan, The Aryeh Kaplan Reader: The Gift He Left Behind: Collected Essays on Jewish Themes from the Noted Writer and Thinker, Mesorah Publications, 1983 p.213

I hear a man of Sephardic background, whose learning was enriched through cross-congregational dialogue, writing with a scientific and quite individually nuanced mind, in this judgement which is brief, yet nicely phrased to allow for complexities.

You can find quite a substantial academic literature now on the most refined points of distinction and controversy, and it would be good if some systematic work were undertaken to begin to wikify these numerous pages. Talmudic citation is parlous enough, since no section of the Talmud can be touched without setting off a vast and delicately calibrated series of resonances through the commentaries of later ages. These two are so complex that, in the end, one does well to use secondary sources. One cannot strictly speaking use the Talmud or the commentaries to write any article because of the technical reasons I gave above. In the Susya article before example, David Amit's essay makes it quite clear that tensions between distinct halakhic rulings in the Talmud exist between the Berakot and Bara Batra tractates (as is so often the case, hence the commentaries), and if one uses primary sources, then the dangers of partial synthesis or selective emphasis are huge.

In general the I/P articles don't take much interest in quality sources (I noted last night that the lead of Israeli Settlements, while remarking that the West Bank is partially under Israeli administration, sources this universally documented commonplace to a book like Hirsch's (et al.) New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (without page numbering). I could multiply this disattention, or insouciance to quality sources, or lack of awareness of what focused sourcing requires, thousands of times. In so many futile edit conflicts, many simply do not appear to understand that everything that they might wish to represent, on either side, can be got from academic books printed by University presses. If you used, as a sophomore, Hirsch and co, not area specialists, to footnote such a self-evident statement, your supervisor would rap you over the knuckles (in the old days) and give you a three minute lecture on the proper methodology of how to source what. The wiki guidelines are overpowering on etiquette etc., but these elementary principles, though regarded as optimal, do not seem to be understood even by experienced editors, who are too prepossessed with every formal requirement save the requirement to write according to the best formal sources available. Sorry for this longueur. But I really do think a page on simple compositional rules, making a hierarchy for what is a reliable source, would help avoid a huge amount of effort wasted in the politics of squabbling over POVs. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Restoring a deleted "article"

Hi Avi,

I hope all is well with you.

I saw that you're a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. I'm not sure whether you can restore an essay that was in somebody's userspace, but if you can, could you move User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content to my userspace? It was a very helpful essay, and I'm sorry to see it deleted. Thanks, — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

שלום

see m:User talk:Avraham. thanks, Daniel B (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

the email

I am surprised at some of the comments you have been making on the West Bank Workshop, and have initiated a discussion on the talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replied there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ani question

Hi Avi, regarding this. Let me preface this by saying that when you write something I am going to pay attention and try and heed any advice you pass along, because as far as I can tell you are one of the few editors on this project that commands the respect of both 'sides' in that area of contentious editing. But, as you said everybody in that thread carries some guilt, I would be interested in knowing what it is that you think I should be correcting in my behavior. It was my feeling that the user which that thread was focused on followed Tiamut just to annoy her in a pretty easily recognizable case of hounding, something for which that user had been warned for in the past. If I did something wrong in bringing this up please let me know, but I felt that was in keeping with DefendEachOther. But please do let me know if you see error in my ways and I will attempt to correct any issues. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant half-baked in the way that I would normally use it, but I'll keep your words in mind. I do agree that there are issues with users on 'both sides'; there are users on 'my side' of things that I think are terrible editors and I honestly wouldn't mind seeing them leave, and there are certainly users from the 'other side' that I have considerable respect for. Whatever, I am going home for a bit and will not be even thinking about this place while I am there, so maybe that will give me an opportunity to relax and help me work on WorkingWithEachOther. See you around, Nableezy (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

I find it rather funny that you've positively concluded that Smedpull (talk · contribs) and Chingadiculous (talk · contribs) are each other's sockpuppets. Take a look at Smedpull's talk page and after that revise the sockpuppet policy. Chingadiculous serves as their new account, which is fine.
All this aside, please do not punish them for my issues. These types of "mistrials" are only damaging the Wikipedia community. If you wish to learn about my story, I'll answer any question. 87.69.57.241 (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I/P articles

Hi Avi, I'd welcome your views on this suggestion, if you have time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:BAG nomination

Hello, Avraham. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Broken cherry

• Congrats on your first +sysop Avi! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• me too, I'm sure you'll do a good job --NSH001 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

I sincerely thank you for closing my BAG membership nomination which passed today at 8/0/0 unanimously. I will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me....Have a nice day. :-) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For watching over me. Blackworm (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

my RfA closing notification

Thank you so much for the great news! Wow! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming users

It has been customary for a while (at least I think) to use account names such as User:Renamed user 2. If you start a new system, such as User:Inactive user account 001, it will only confuse people. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunholm

I know you've dealt with this user in the past, so I'll be straight - I'm a former meatpuppet of his who he recruited a few years back. The user was a bit like User:MascotGuy except he did use talk pages. I'm just being open and honest here. I've decided to make a fresh start, per [[1]]. I'm not sure if this applies to meatpuppets though. Anyway, should point out that not every user suspected of being him is him, as he did recruit meatpuppets.

I'm really sorry for this, and for any upset that he caused you, or any Checkuser/sysop/Wikimedian. But I live and learn. --Gulsig4 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Stuart Adamson.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Stuart Adamson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor case clarification

Hi Avi. On Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sui (later moved and merged with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JarlaxleArtemis/Archive), you mentioned that Suit (talk · contribs) was unrelated, and that you had unblocked him. However, he is still blocked for email abuse. I was wondering if Suit was completely innocent of his block reason, and whether he should be unblocked, or whether he should remain blocked for the reason stated in his block log. Just for clarification. Thanks. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. The mix-up seems probable with User:SUIT confirmed and the name only quoted from an email, and from the contributions it's also obvious that en:User:Suit == de:User:Suit. Since the account is somewhat active here I didn't want this to wait for too long.
Cheers, Amalthea 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Inexplicable reversion

Please explain how in your view, the BMA's quoted statement "contradicts the BMA."[2] It seems you may believe the BMA is contradicting itself, but you have not adequately demonstrated that, and thus your reversion seems based on (at least) original research. Also please explain the reversion of the other changes, which you did not address in your edit summary. Blackworm (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased view on Circumcision

Your view on circumcision seems to be rather biased. Please try to stay as neutral as possible in the debate. Why do try to suppress reliable information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.109.57 (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)